Try telling that to most fans. You get the tired and untrue "it's boring" drivel. Which I don't understand. Not a single bit. Wasn't stockpiled with massive amounts of action & blood that the first produced. That's the point of splitting the story.

Learning the backstory of Beatrix was essential. As was tying all the loose ends. I still adore the scenes featuring Pai Mei.

Actually, I know no such people. Every film critic, film fan or QT fanatic I know ranks Vol. 2 very high.

May the odds be ever in your favor...
Because I call first dibs on this.REP is great, but bumping keeps threads alive!SCJ™ GIF Usage Policy

Easy to see those were Quentin's intentions. Vol. 1 to be the action piece (with the Ishii & initial telling of the story) & Vol. 2 to be the more complete backstory along with the finality aspects of continuing from where Vol. 1 left off.

Easy to see those were Quentin's intentions. Vol. 1 to be the action piece (with the Ishii & initial telling of the story) & Vol. 2 to be the more complete backstory along with the finality aspects of continuing from where Vol. 1 left off.

First off, tell me how a movie can get made WITHOUT a script?

I see Vol. 1 as the action set piece with some great QT dialogue peppered throughout. Vol. 2, though, flip-flops that ratio with beautiful words and the ebst supporting performance of that year by the late David Carradine, who I had one opportunity to meet and pass that thought along to in-person and was gracious in return.

May the odds be ever in your favor...
Because I call first dibs on this.REP is great, but bumping keeps threads alive!SCJ™ GIF Usage Policy

It's not too difficult in reallity. Is all about montage (In fact, Cinema is all about Montage), You can film whatever you want and then unite the pieces in montage and if it made sense the two images form a new image, you know the Kulechov Experiment. No one needs Scripts for that

Scripts were born like a guide to create a movie but in some part of the way the movies begins too depend too much of them, specially because movies start to depend heavily on dialogue. Quoting Godard: "If you have a a really good Script, made a book with him"

Vertov was making movies without scripts in the twenties, Hitchcock used to say that he made the movies in his head and that all that happens was there before,Scrpits were for the actors and for the producer team.

I don't reject scripts inmediately, but to say that the script is a fundamental element in a movie and that is the begining of a film? bullshit... the thing is a just a guide, if you follow the script point for point, i feel really sorry for you

I see where asdf0501 is coming from, I've seen some incredible films that were made without scripts in mind, but it goes both ways. There's films were the script can either be the downfall or the strongest aspect.

I think generally movies made without scripts tend to be very non-narrative, and that's a really divisive form of film making.

Hitchcock said that about scripts because he had no idea how to write them himself and wouldn't let his ego admit that something he couldn't or didn't have the appropriate discipline to do was remotely important. He also called actors cattle because he was no doubt envious of the skill involved in the profession.

No script imo usually equals indulgence because the film starts to lose sight of a cohesive narrative. But then narrative is not for everyone.

Also the world will never be crying out for a Tarantino directorial Oscar like they were for Scorsese. Tarantino only has one filmmaking style, it's effective but he has not proven to have any versatility at all. I'm fine with him never winning that award.